In Canada, post-marriage agreements are allowed and, in fact, most provinces have laws that expressly authorize them. [Citation required] However, the courts subject them to greater legal scrutiny than marital agreements. The reason is the legal theory which, before marriage, none of the spouses has any legal rights, so that a spouse does not give up anything by signing a marriage contract. [Citation required] But after marriage, different family rights crystallize. So if you enter into a post-reissue agreement, you give up the rights you already have. [1] In New York, for example. B post-marriage agreements are approved by the National Relations Act (DRL) 236 (B) (3). However, the inconsistent precedent between the first and second divisions in the timing of the challenge to a post-initial agreement is worrying. As a result, practitioners must understand the guidelines, restrictions and limitations of these agreements before they are recommended to their clients, and they must be aware of the fiduciary relationship between spouses, which leads to stricter judicial review of post-ascendancy agreements than other marital agreements. Practitioners should draw on both the policy and spirit of DRL 236 when trying to allow transfers as part of the negotiation of a post-uptial agreement. DRL ` 236 (B) (3) expressly requires full and complete disclosure.

Since there is no legal definition of what is adequate disclosure, the question of disclosure is highly subjective and raises the question: “How much is enough?” In order to protect both the client and himself from possible claims of wrongdoing, each party should disclose assets and liabilities held individually and jointly in the form of an affidavit and exchange tax returns for at least three years. If the terms of a post-nuptial agreement are based on certain elements of ownership and the post-uptial agreement indicates that the property is identified according to a schedule attached to the agreement, the timetable must actually be attached for the agreement to be enforceable. Darius v. Darius, 245 AD2d 663, 665 NYS2d 447 (3d.